Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc.
Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc. appealed a decision regarding the pricing of a delivery order for M211 infrared countermeasure decoy flares, which the Army claimed involved defective cost or pricing data. The Board sustained the appeal, finding that the Army did not demonstrate reliance on the alleged defective data.
Material Facts
- Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc. held an IDIQ contract with the Army for M211 infrared countermeasure decoys.
- The Army awarded the contract in January 2004 and requested a proposal for additional M211s in April 2006.
- Alloy submitted its proposal for Delivery Order 14 in April 2006 without including material and labor usage data from Delivery Order 13.
- The Army contended that it relied on defective material and usage rates when negotiating the price for Delivery Order 14.
- The Army sought a price adjustment of $15,920,212 plus interest due to alleged defective pricing.
- The Board found that the job cost sheets from Delivery Order 13 did not meet the criteria for certified cost or pricing data under TINA.
Parties
- Appellant
- Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W15QKN-04-D-1002-0014
Full Legal Analysis
Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.
Holding & Legal Reasoning
The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.
Issues Presented
Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.
Quantum & Recovery
The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.
Verified Authorities & Citations
Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.
Practitioner Takeaways
Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.
Similar Cases
Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.
Citation Graph
An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.
Related Decisions
Same Judge
- Arctic Swan Construction Inc.No. 64085September 22, 2026
- WSP USA Solutions Inc.No. 62674September 1, 2026
- Jaxon Construction, Inc.No. 64432June 24, 2026
- Arctic Swan Construction Inc.No. 63510, 64085June 16, 2026
- Eleven Bravo Group, LLCNo. 63932April 8, 2026
- Penna Group, LLCNo. 61708-ADR, 61641-ADR, 61642-ADRFebruary 20, 2026
Same Year
- Sweet Star Logistic ServiceNo. 62082December 29, 2020
- Nan, Inc.No. 61472, 61482, 61500, 61509, 61514, 61523, 61555, 61569, 61705, 61726, 61727, 61728, 61821, 61822, 61823, 61963December 18, 2020
- Asahi General Trading & Cont. Co. W.L.L.No. 62445December 18, 2020
- Kautaq Construction Services, LLCNo. 62462-ADRDecember 18, 2020
- MAC Electric Inc.No. 62503December 18, 2020
- Parsons Government Services, Inc.No. 62112December 17, 2020
Same Issue
- Left Hand Design CorporationNo. 62458November 7, 2024
- Supreme Foodservice GmbHNo. 60309April 12, 2024
- AAI Corporation, d/b/a Textron Systems, Unmanned SystemsNo. 61195, 61356March 23, 2022
- BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.No. 62703, 62704September 23, 2021
- Advanced Technologies Group, Inc.No. 59986, 61092November 18, 2020
- BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems LPNo. 59491, 60433July 25, 2016